Johannes Koch schrieb:
> Hi there,
>
> in
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2009Dec/0004.html>
> Jonathan Rees suggested to add an Entity class to the HTTP-in-RDF
> vocabulary. Only entity headers would be associated with resources of
> type Entity.
>
> I guess, the other headers would still be associated to a Message resource.
>
> He also writes that this "would be useful in validating cache and proxy
> correctness, for example in accounting for the 'etag' header."
>
> I do not see that this is not possible with the current approach.
>
> Basically I see one major problem: HTTP-in-RDF represents the
> _structure_ of HTTP things, not the _semantics_. HTTP-in-RDF is
> header-purpose-agnostic. If we follow Jonathan's approach we have to
> distinguish entity headers from non-entity headers.
>
> HTTP 1.1 lists "general-header (section 4.5), request-header (section
> 5.3), response-header (section 6.2), and entity-header (section 7.1)
> fields". However, the IANA registry for message header field names does
> not give any indication about this classification (because it is a
> registry for message header field names, not _HTTP_ message header field
> names?). Even in RFC 4229 "HTTP Header Field Registrations" there's no
> indication.
>
> We could assume that the entity header field names listed in HTTP 1.1
> section 7.1 are the only field names to be classified as entity header
> field names, meaning every field name to be registered with IANA apart
> from these cannot be an entity header field. But I don't know if this is
> a viable assumption.
Jonathan's approach may look like:
Message
|- Entity
| |- MessageHeader \
| |- MessageHeader + entity headers
| |- MessageHeader /
| |- Content
|- MessageHeader \
|- MessageHeader |
|- MessageHeader + non-entity headers
|- MessageHeader |
|- MessageHeader /
--
Johannes Koch
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
Web Compliance Center
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065